Document Information

Date: 1905-03-03
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 2043-2047.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

2043

….

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to inquire of the government whether or not there are to be any changes made in the Bills that have been introduced by the Prime Minister for the establishment of new provinces in the Northwest Territories? I venture to mention this because I see in newspapers that are supposed to be in the confidence of the government, rumours—nay more than rumours, direct statements—that there are to be certain changes made in the provisions of these Bills. In connection with this matter, it seems to me that the practice followed by the Prime Minister with regard to these Bills, and also the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill of two years ago, is not a practice supported by any competent authority. I refer to the practice of introducing a Bill with which the House is not at all familiar, and proceeding to debate it in a manner which is usual only upon the second reading. I am aware, of course, that it is not only perfectly proper, but that it is usual to make a succinct statement explanatory of the provisions of a Bill upon its first reading, but I do not find any authority for proceeding to debate a Bill upon its first reading, before the measure is laid before the House in printed form and before the House has had an opportunity of becoming familiar with its provisions. I am well aware that it was the intention of the government to have favoured me personally with a copy of the Bill some little time in advance of its introduction; but, unfortunately, for reasons which were no doubt beyond the control of the government, that intention was not carried out, and I received the Bill only about the time the Prime Minister rose to introduce it. But even if I had received the Bill say twenty-four hours in advance, as might perhaps have been very

2044

proper under the circumstances, that would not have afforded an opportunity to other members of the House who are equally interested with myself in discussing the measure, if it was to be discussed at that stage, to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the scope and meaning of the provisions of the Bill before proceeding to discuss it. I mention this because it seems to me that if this practice is to be followed by the government in the future in regard to important measures of this kind, it would be well to have each Bill printed two or three days in advance of its introduction, so that, if there is to be a discussion on the first reading, the House can proceed intelligently with that discussion, and can have an opportunity beforehand of giving the Bill that consideration which, of course, is absolutely necessary to a measure of this kind.

Now, I have asked as to changes in the Bill. If they have not come to any conclusion with regard to changes in the Bill; if they have not come to any conclusion up to the present time, I would very respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that, if any changes of importance are to be made in the provisions of this Bill before the second reading is reached, it would be highly in the interest of the members who will have to discuss the measure, and indeed would be very much in the interest of the country as a whole, that the Prime Minister should acquaint the House with the nature of those changes a reasonable time before the second reading is brought on. I have no doubt that the right hon. gentleman will assent to this as a reasonable request, and that it will be complied with.

Let me add just one word of personal explanation with regard to myself. I do not usually trouble the House with very much personal explanation about statements with regard to myself in the public press; but there have been a number of suggestions or statements made as to my recent absence from the House which I think must proceed upon an entire misunderstanding. I quote only one of these, which is not couched perhaps in a very offensive form, but which conveys a suggestion which is absolutely untrue:

That the constant factors in our politics are not wholly unknown to some of our Conservative friends the tactful absence of Mr. Borden from Ottawa at this juncture abundantly illustrates.

And so on in other journals, some of the suggestions being couched in a somewhat more impertinent form than that which I have just read. I had no intention of absenting myself from the city of Ottawa up to four o’clock of the afternoon of last Wednesday week, when I received a telegram announcing the sudden death of a very near and dear relative under very distressing circumstances. On the following

2045

morning I left for my home in Halifax for that reason and that reason alone, expecting to return to Ottawa by noon of the following Tuesday. As I have already mentioned in this House, I did not reach Halifax on Friday evening owing to the snow blockade, but I reached there on Monday evening, more than seventy-two hours late. I left Halifax on Wednesday morning and arrived at Ottawa on Thursday evening. I think it is due to myself to make this explanation, because I do not think that in my public life I have usually been found wanting in my attendance on parliament; nor do I think that anything has been displayed in my public career which would lead any journalist of even the most suspicious type to suppose that I would have gone to Halifax on this particular occasion if it had not been absolutely necessary, in my judgment, that I should do so. I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for having been compelled in self defence to inflict this statement of private and personal affairs upon the House, and I know that under the circumstances the House will pardon me for doing so.

There is one other matter which I forgot to mention. On the introduction of this Bill I brought to the attention of the government the fact that a number of returns which had been moved for had not yet been brought down. I also pointed out that there was certain information which I thought would be necessary for the intelligent discussion of the questions that are to be considered in the House, and that it should be brought down in a shape to be readily available to every member of the House.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Mr. Speaker, I think I voice the feeling of the House when I say to my hon. friend that no apology was needed from him as to his absence from the House. Unfortunately, we are all victims of the press, and if we were to take very seriously everything that is said of us, our repose would be considerably affected. But I think we can make allowance for the newspaper men in their desire to give the latest news. Everybody knows the painful circumstances under which my hon. friend had to leave this House, and no one, I can assure him, speaking for this side, had any suspicion that his absence was due to any other cause than domestic affliction. With regard to the main question which my hon. friend has put to me, I do not agree with him as to the constitutional practice. I admit that in Canada the discussion generally takes place on the second reading of a Bill. This is so in England also; but my hon. friend is aware that in England every important measure, I do not say invariably, but as a rule, is explained by the minister in charge of the Bill upon its presentation for the first reading. Thereupon the matter is left for some time for the deliberation of the House and the

2046

country. This practice I have followed on this occasion, and I believe yet that it is the best method. The government have explained their policy, and have left it to the judgment of the House and the country. If the Bill were to be presented without any explanation, the country would be without the real reasons which prompted the government in introducing it. If the first reading were to be followed immediately by a discussion, I think the House, especially the opposition, would be taken at a disadvantage, and the government might be charged with sharp practice; but if the Bill is left for a reasonable time after being introduced, the opposition have an opportunity to prepare and explain their views upon it. I still think this is the best policy that can be followed.

My hon. friend has asked me if it was the intention of the government to introduce changes into this Bill. I have only to reply that it is open to the party who introduces a Bill to change it at all times. I have seen few Bills introduced into this House or any deliberative assembly which have gone through the third reading without being considerably amended, and the more important the Bill the more likely is it to be amended. Even Bills of a very minor importance are very often amended so as to be hardly recognizable when they leave the committee. Whether or not any changes shall be made will be known as the Bill goes through its various stages; and if any should be made, they shall be made in the ordinary course. With regard to the information asked for by my hon. friend, I shall endeavour to comply with his request.

Mr. FOSTER. It seems to me that in addition to the information already asked, it would be advisable that a definite summary be furnished of the different changes, dating from confederation, in the financial terms which have taken place to the benefit of the provinces. There has been legislation in various years, adding to the provincial subsidies. If a concise memo. could be made of all these changes with reference to each of the provinces, showing the additions that each one has received to its subsidy and matters of that kind, that would help us very much when we come to discuss the financial clauses of this measure.

Mr. FIELDING. I agree with my hon. friend that a memo. of that character would be useful, and shall endeavour to have it produced before the second reading of the Bill is proceeded with.

Hon. PETER WHITE. It would be desirable that in the case of a long speech such as that which was delivered by the right hon. the leader of the government when introducing this Bill, a copy of the Bill should also at the time, before the House. It would be well hereafter that members of the

2047

House, should be given the opportunity of becoming conversant with the contents of the measures introduced, when the speech explained that measure on its introduction is delivered. Let me quote from Sir John Bourinot:

It is usual on the introduction of a Bill—on the motion for leave—to explain clearly and succinctly its main provisions; but it is not the practice to debate it at length at that stage, such discussion being more properly and conveniently deferred to the second reading when the Bill is printed and the House in a position to discuss its principle. Sometimes, however, a short discussion may arise on some features of the Bill on the motion for its introduction, as there is no rule to prevent a debate.

That is quite true, but, when on an important Bill, such as that creating new provinces in the Northwest Territories, the main speech of its introducer is made on the motion for leave to introduce, I think the Bill itself should then be in the hands of hon. members, so that they might be seized of its contents before it is introduced.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. So far as my information goes, and I think it is accurate, this is not the English practice.

Mr. WHITE. I do not know what the English practice is.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. In this country we have been accustomed to explain Bills on their second reading, but in England all important measures are fully exposed and explained on their first reading by the minister in charge.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not think there is much difference between the right hon. gentleman and myself regarding the practice, but the question is whether the practice is carried out, and the only difference between us is as to the practice which was pursued in this case.